Hu: Little good comes of popularity contests, except perhaps a little light fun at best. The down side is that they can quickly become negative, especially considering the nature of Wiki "voting". This has already happened. Rather than get into an editing war by deleting the negativity again, only to have it restored, again, I am opening up discussion here.
If no good reason for the existence of the negative nominations can be articulated, then that part should be deleted.
Tamsin: Constantly, Hu, I find myself breathing these words whenever I read a post of yours: "Lighten up!" You seem to be very, very sensitive.
Personally, it looks like a poll to see who's most popular among the voters. I can't see any category for "negative votes" for people you like least.
I don't vote myself because I'm not interested, but I really don't see why those who do shouldn't have their fun.
Hu: I am well aware of, and enjoy, light fun, Tamsin, which is why I mention it in the very first sentence I wrote here. The text I am referring to is this at the bottom of the parent page: "So what's about the worst (better: least helpful) assistant? Any vote page for that yet?". That is the negative text that was entered, edited out, and entered again. Clearer now?
Tamsin: Ah, I missed that. I agree people shouldn't be on a witch hunt to find the "least helpful assistant".
Anon: Like a former teacher of mine said: "If you are trying to improve a system, don't look for the best part of it, try to find the worst parts and improve them". What is wrong in reviewing the performance of some admins / assistants?
Tamsin: If KGS assistants were professionals, getting paid for it, then of course it would be appropriate for them to be reviewed critically. But, they do it voluntarily, because they want to help. Don't you think the person who finished top of the "least helpful assistant poll" might feel just a bit disenchanted about that? If an assistant were rude or whatever, which I think is just a tiny bit unlikely, then all you'd have to do would be to message an admin about it. But looking for "worst parts" in voluntary work like that is too much.
Benjamin Geiger: Agreed with both Anon and Tamsin. While it is important to seek out flaws and repair them, it is also important to let the admins and assistants in question have the benefit of the doubt, and their dignity. As Tamsin said, if you have a problem with an assistant, talk to an admin; don't go spewing vitriol before you understand the complete situation. (Personally, I've never had a problem with any of the admins or assistants.)
Ian Davis: SL is not a forum for abuse or personal or professional attack.